Check this out! it makes you think .
news the major liberal media wont print?

www.wnd.com

gee has pat buchanon's name on it.....
go figure

did you bother to read any thing or just commet? try cliking on his name.

Anyone who watched the Iraq invasion on any U.S. media, who still thinks there is a liberal media bias is probably still wondering if the Easter bunny is real.

One could have just as easily have said, Look Here for the News the Right Wing Wacko Press Wouldn't Print

www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-04.htm

Liberal media?? I have to disagree.

Here's a great book on it...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ks&n=507846

uh ...yeah I looked it over pretty good, I don't agree with it. I find it very unsuprising to see many of those names in the same place. I did miss one thing though, I could not find a 700club ad or banner...

DOH!!!

the reason eric wrote that book is because a few months earlier this was released... Bias and someone felt the need to do damage control

by the way CWUgirl, if you have read erics book, you would see your post has a lot in common with it, they are both one sided

Liberal media?? I have to AGREE.

Here's a great book on it...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...7778983-6611243

Touche, CWUgirl.

cool news link sponsa, I never thought to do a news search.

Here is one of my favorite books!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...0798707-9332028

right wing wackos rule!
left wing wackos are led

The media in the US has always been liberal to some degree or another. If they weren't, women couldn't vote and we'd probably still be working in the factory 12 hours a day with no weekends and no overtime pay alongside 8 year old kids while eating unsanitary food.

What always gets me is that people complain about the 'liberal' media, and yet, where is the 'conservative' media? It's not a closed system, you know. Anyone can start their own publication or at least have a show on the public access channel. There are already 'conservative' talk radio stations. Of course, most of those talk radio people I've heard come off as nazi-esque flaming gasbags, but I'm sure there are others.

It is amazing that the right-wingers continually cry about the liberal "mainstream media". Most of the time I hear them doing this via licenses granted to them by the Federal Government (i.e. the people) on what is one of the most mainstream of media - AM radio. It is a joke, a very poor one, that gives truth to the old saw - if you tell a lie enough, it starts to sound like the truth.

I just have a couple questions.

If you believe the mainsteam media has a liberal bias, are you recommending this site because you'd like to promote balance via it's conservative bias, or is this what you consider objective journalism? (including the right-wing rantings of a pre-teenager!?) I'm actually all for conflicting biases; it's how things get washed out. But if you're trying to sell this hodge-podge of blatant conjecture, innuendo, conspiracy theory, and polemic as objective truth, Oh Please!

Second, if the mainstream media is really just some pinko conspiracy, what do you think it has accomplished exactly? that the top 5% of the population only controls 70% of the wealth and not the 100% it deserves? that the rich have to pay any income tax at all?
That now we can only discriminate against homosexuals or african-americans or other minorities in employment or housing or education, and it's no longer OK to beat them up for sport? that industry has to fill out some forms before it dumps it's waste into our air and water or sells us wasteful, unsafe, and unsustainable products? that conservatives have to at least go through the motions of an election before the supreme court appoints one president? That business actually has to buy the government instead of having it handed to them?

What gets me is you guys are winning! Why do you insist on getting to act like sore losers too?

Stilly, I'm just glad you didn't pick an Anne Coulter book... Ohhh she is the devil. Or rather, she's a know-nothing with a big mouth and short skirts!

I've read parts of that particular book. Just don't agree there is a liberal conspiracy out there.

MM..... I'm a big reader of Buchanan- a must read is "Death of the West" and am a conservative (in most respects) myself. However, I think there was some great points made in that book such as talk radio almost completely being the realm of conservatives.

Is this the article? From the first link on this post......WorldNet Daily

Today's anti-war movement, while claiming publicly to advocate for peace, is dominated by organizations promoting Communism, anarchy, large-scale urban rioting, financial disruption, and violent attacks on governmental, corporate, military and media centers in America, according to the April issue of Whistleblower, WorldNetDaily's acclaimed monthly print magazine. The issue is titled "Anti-war or anti-America?"

"Readers better sit down and take a deep breath before they read this issue," said Editor and CEO Joseph Farah. "Many dangerous, violent and profoundly anti-American organizations are using the current war as cover to try to bring America to its knees. They hate this country and openly advocate destroying it. Their cause has nothing to do with opposing war, but everything to do with opposing America. In some cases, both their tactics and their goals are not far from those of the very terrorists we are fighting."

Indeed, some of the major "anti-war" groups are intimately connected with terrorist states like North Korea, as well as terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Some, like the international A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, are closely allied with known communist organizations

Well, in the words of our triumphant Defense Secretary: Goodness gracious!

Anarchists you say! Known communists! They want to bring America to its knees!? and they "dominate" the so called peace movement!? Why, those coniving evil-doers.

Don't you have any idea how silly that sounds? Even if it's all true, in case you hadn't heard, we won the cold war; "known communists" aren't much of a threat any more, and I don't know how worked up I should get about a bunch of misfit college students from Eugene all dressed in black. I doubt the legitimate peace movement takes them any more seriously than you should.

I mean really, get a grip.

Hey Gramps,

You wouldn't happen to be of Scottish/Irish descent, with the first name Joseph would you... :p

Quit trying to arm wrestle over the question of liberal media bias.......I laugh and almost fall over when a left wing lib tries to defend the mainstream media as being balanced and fair. Bull***t. Dan Rather is not biased......LOLOLOL

Here is an exerpt from last nites O'reilly report on Fox News. Yes Fox is more conservative, and I recommend that those of you who only watch the Clinton News Network (Thats CNN for you lefties) try to open your minds a bit and watch a different take.

......."Salon.com is a left-wing Web site that pretty much speaks to the choir. The editors don't like President Bush, don't like tax cuts, don't like public prayer, don't like me, that kind of thing.

But I will say this for Salon executive editor, Gary Kamiya. At least he's honest. Writing about the aftermath of the Gulf War, he admits the removal of Saddam is a good thing, but then says, "I have a confession. I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone. A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have identical feelings."............


I dont think this particular quote speaks directly to the issue of whether the media is biased or not, I personlly think it shows the attitude and overall lack or morality that resides deep inside the Democratic party and far too many liberals in general. They would rather have our country experiece more death and destruction to further their own agenda politically......very sad but right out of their playbook.

I dont think its a stretch to guess that there are many others in the news industry/media that feel the way Mr. Kamiya does, and it certainly put a slant at times to what they reported.

Now, I consider myself a moderate, and have nothing against the conservative message itself. It's all the baggage that the Republicans bring with them that makes me vote against them:

Shove those homos back in the closet! Prayer in schools, we'll tell your kids what god they should pray to! No more birth control! Women should go back tp the motherhood role! Creation 'science' is just as good to teach in schools as evolution! Guns for everyone, even for that violent rapist who just got out of jail last week, we'll just let everyone else have more guns than him!

If the Republican party could at least shed themselves of the Bible thumping homophobics, maybe they'd see me voting for them.

4salt...there you go again...shooting the messenger..All I had to do was cut and paste a snippet from the link someone else posted and I am Joe McCarthy already...Oh I gotta cut this short...the 700 Club is on. <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

I'm almost done with Bernard Goldberg's book. If I hadn't left it at work I would quote a couple of lines that make his point. Basically, there isn't a conspiracy in the media. Most people in the news just happen to be liberal. Our national news comes from New York so it shouldn't be a surprise. They live and work around other liberals. They have liberal friends. They can look around and say to themselves, "everyone I know thinks this way."
The book makes a lot of sense.

Arklier,

thats a pretty harsh accusation.

can you name one public figure who wants:

1. to shove homos in closets?
2. tell kids to pray to only one certain god in schools?
3. ban all birth control?
4. force women to only a motherhood role?
5. teach creation science?
6. to arm violent rapists when released from jail?

hmmm, i didn't think so...

Newt?

Arklier wasn't characterizing an individual, he was chracterizing the conservative platform.

Asking him to name an individual that supports all of the positions of their respective platform is an impossibility....


...oh, excpet for Newt...

...and Pat Buchanan...

thats right, because those are all hyped-up liberal spin with no basis in fact

Metalhead - These got lost in the site update, so here they are again, plus a couple more:

Rick Santorum

Trent Lott

Jesse Helms

Jerry Falwell

Strom Thurmond (back when he could think! )

David Duke

Rush Limbaugh

Michael Savage

and the afore mentioned Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchannan.

Obviously you won't get any of them to admit it "on the record", but I bet if you caught up with them at the bar, or in the case of Mr. Duke, after the Klan rally.....

There are alot of demons dancing in alot of heads around here....

Actually 4Salt, they do on go on record......

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

And the White House supports him! In this day and age? Unreal.....

Ike

When searching for truth it is advisable to get as many points of view as possible. Those who thinks there is a liberal conspiracy at hand might want to get the other side of the story by reading books like “Blinded by the Right”. It brings into perspective what the right wing individuals and organizations will do to perpetuate their agenda and yes the extreme left is just as bad. While you are debating the differences between the two ideologies those who could care less about what you think are destroying your freedoms and your heritage. On another thread a very smart guy posted the fact that it is becoming difficult to know where government leaves off and corporate America begins and that will destroy everything this country has stood fore for the last 200 plus years.

Who was that one Republican congressman that kept making slanderous public remarks against out-of-the-closet homosexual Democrat Barney Frank? Like when said person got a proctology exam and said it was something only Barney Frank would enjoy. You would think that there would be at least some kind of professionalism or at least common courtesy, but there wasn't, and the GOP did nothing to shut this guy up. It disgusted me, the fact that this guy could not even put aside his nature and be bigoted in private.

And yes, my previous post was a generalization of the platform as a whole, though several people were pointed out as supporting most of the platform. And no, I'm not homosexual myself. I just happen to know quite a few of them, most of whom are very nice people. Who cares what they do in bed? Who cares if they walk down the street holding hands? Who cares if they kiss in public?It's no one's business but their own.

IMHO, the Republican party has gotten into bed with dangerous people who want to legislate morality and make everyone conform to their own version of morality, for their own good, no less.

its funny how the liberal media is owned by ultra conservative corporations.

cwugirl- love your posts here. especially about ann coulter.

arklier- keep telling the truth. we need more of it here.

FOX is conservative(extreemely).

MSNBC (owned by GE, the largest defense contractor in the world and the largest producer of nuclear weapons) went from half and half to firing donahue their top rated guy and switching to copying anything fox does. they are now ultra conservative.

CNBC is about almost balanced but more conservative than liberal.

CNN is the only station that could be called liberal. I dont think it is liberal but it is the only station that makes any any attempt at all to be balanced. their problem is dorks like connie chung and arron "gee wiz"brown.

The truth is that about 80% of all information available to the american public thru any media is controlled by 5 white men. only one of those men is known to be liberal to any degree. its just that knee-jerk reactionary republicans make the best audience because they buy into the idea that everything has one cause and one effect.


what is everyones definition of liberal and conservative? I think that it is not a straight line with left on one side and right on the other. I see it as a circle where the far left and the far right have alot in common and begin to resemble each other. not the opposites they may think they are. on the far right is anarchy.... on the far left is anarchy.

the firing of donohue was interesting given he had such a high rating at that time slot....an msnbc memo said they had to get him off the air before the iraq war because the show may 'become a forum for anti-war thought'....that don't sound liberal to me...or maybe it is...depends on the definition i guess.....